End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

8.1:101 Model
Rule Comparison

PA Rule 8.1(a)
states that "[a] lawyer is subject to discipline if the lawyer has made a materially
false statement in, or if the lawyer has deliberately failed to disclose a material
fact requested in connection with the lawyer's application for admission to
the bar or any disciplinary matter." In contrast, MR
8.1 states that an applicant for admission to the bar or a lawyer in connection
with a bar admission application or a disciplinary matter shall not "knowingly
make a false statement of material fact" or "fail to disclose a fact necessary
to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter,
or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions
or disciplinary authority . . ." The Model Rule does not require the disclosure
of information otherwise protected by Rule
1.6. The Pennsylvania Rule does not contain a similar provision. PA
Rule 8.1(b) states that "[a] lawyer shall not further the application for
admission to the bar of another person known by the lawyer to be unqualified
in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute." MR
8.1 does not contain a similar provision.

8.1:102 Model
Code Comparison

DR 1-101(A)
provides that "[a] lawyer is subject to discipline if he has made a materially
false statement in, or if he has deliberately failed to disclose a material
fact requested in connection with, his application for admission to the bar."
DR 1-101(B) provides that "[a]
lawyer shall not further the application for admission to the bar of another
person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or
other relevant attribute." EC 1-1
states that "[m]aintaining the integrity and improving the competence of the
bar to meet the highest standards is the ethical responsibility of every lawyer."
EC 1-3 states that "[b]efore recommending
an applicant for admission, a lawyer should satisfy himself that the applicant
is of good moral character." It also states that a lawyer "should report to
proper officials all unfavorable information he possesses relating to the character
or other qualifications of an applicant." DR
1-103(B) states that "[a] lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge or evidence
concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence
upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate
or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges."

8.1:210 Bar
Admission Agency

Under the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules ("Pa.B.A.R."),
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has the authority to appoint a board to be
known as the "Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners" (the "Board"). Pa.B.A.R.
104. The Board has the power and duty, among other things, to adopt rules
pertaining to admission to the bar and to the practice of law and to recommend
the admission of persons to the bar and the practice of law. Pa.B.A.R.
104.

8.1:220 Bar
Admission Requirements

Pa.B.A.R. 202 states that "[a]n
applicant who complies with the requirements of Rule 203
(relating to admission of graduates of accredited institutions), Rule
204 (relating to admission of domestic attorneys) or Rule
205 (relating to admission of foreign attorneys) and the applicable rules
of the Board shall be admitted to the bar of this Commonwealth in the manner
prescribed by these rules."

Under Pa.B.A.R 203(b) (relating to graduates of accredited
institutions), "[t]he general requirements for admission to the bar of this
Commonwealth are (1) satisfactory completion of the bar examination administered
by or under the authority of the Board. . ." The general requirements to sit
for the bar examination are: (1) receipt of an undergraduate degree from an
accredited college or university or the receipt of an equivalent education;
(2) completion of the study of law at and receipt of an earned Bachelor of Laws
or Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school; and (3) absence of prior
conduct by the applicant which indicates character and general qualifications
incompatible with the standards expected to be observed by members of the bar.
Pa.B.A.R. 203(a). An applicant who completed the study
of law at and received an earned Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor degree from
an unaccredited law school located within the boundaries of the United States
may sit for the bar examination provided the applicant is a member of the bar
of a reciprocal state and meets the following additional qualifications: (1)
presentation of a certificate from the highest court or agency of such state
having jurisdiction over admission to the bar and the practice of law stating
that the applicant is in good standing at the bar of such court or such state;
and (2) presentation of proof that the applicant has for a period of five of
the last seven years (a) engaged in the practice of law in a reciprocal state,
or (b) engaged full-time in the teaching of law at one or more accredited law
schools in the United States, or (c) served on active duty in the United States
military service as a judge advocate or law specialist. Pa.B.A.R.
203(a)(2)(ii).

Under Pa.B.A.R. 204 (relating to the admission of domestic
attorneys), an attorney of another state may be admitted to the bar of Pennsylvania
if the applicant has completed the study of law at and received an earned Bachelor
of Laws or Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school, is a member of
the bar of a reciprocal state, and meets the same additional qualifications
set forth above.

Under Pa.B.A.R. 205 (relating to the admission of foreign
attorneys), the Board may allow an applicant to sit for the bar examination
who has not completed the study of law in a law school located within the geographical
area encompassed by the accreditation activities of the American Bar Association
provided the applicant has been admitted to practice law in and is in good standing
at the bar of a foreign country and has for a period of five of the last eight
years engaged in the practice of law in such foreign country. Foreign applicants
must also successfully complete 30 credit hours in an accredited American law
school in the following subjects: Conflict of Laws; Constitutional Law; Contracts;
Corporations; Criminal Law; Decedents' Estates; Evidence; Family Law; Federal
and/or Pennsylvania Civil Procedure; Federal Income Taxes (personal only); Professional
Responsibility; Real Property; Torts; Uniform Commercial Code, Art. II -- Sales;
Uniform Commercial Code, Art. III -- Commercial Paper; Uniform Commercial Code,
Art. IX -- Secured Transactions. Pa.B.A.R. 205(b).
No more than four credit hours in any one subject shall be counted toward this
requirement. Pa.B.A.R. 205(b). Applicants must successfully
complete up to four credits in each of the following subjects: Constitutional
Law; Contracts; Criminal Law; Decedents' Estates; Evidence; Federal and/or Pennsylvania
Civil Procedure; Professional Responsibility; Real Property; and Torts. Pa.B.A.R.
205(b).

8.1:230 Admission
on Motion

Pa.B.A.R. 231 states that motions for admission shall be
made by filing one copy with the Prothonotary. The motion shall be in writing
on a form prescribed by the Board and shall include (1) a certificate from the
Board recommending such admission, (2) the oath of office required by statute,
and (3) a formal motion for admission. Pa.B.A.R. 231(a).
The certificate from the Board shall be dated within six months of the filing
of the motion or shall be accompanied by a written statement of the Board dated
within six months of the filing of the motion to the effect that it knows of
no reason why the motion should not be granted. Pa.B.A.R.
231(a)(1). The motion for admission shall be subscribed by a member of
the bar in good standing. Pa.B.A.R. 231(b). The applicant
upon filing a motion shall pay a fee of $50.00. Pa.B.A.R.
231(c). An applicant may elect to take the oath of admission in person
before the Supreme Court at such time and place as may be directed by the Court.
Pa.B.A.R. 231(e).

An attorney who is qualified to practice in the courts
of another state or of any foreign jurisdiction may be specially admitted to
the bar of Pennsylvania for purposes limited to a particular matter. Pa.B.A.R.
301(a). The attorney, however, is not authorized to act as attorney of
record. Pa.B.A.R. 301(a). In the case of such applicants,
the oath shall not be required and there shall be no fee. Pa.B.A.R.
301(b). Written notice of such motion shall be signed by a member of
the bar of Pennsylvania, shall recite all relevant facts, and shall be filed
with the clerk of the court in which the matter is pending at least three days
before the motion. Pa.B.A.R. 301(b). The motion shall
be granted unless good cause for denial shall appear. Pa.B.A.R.
301(b).

8.1:300 False
Statements of Material Fact in Connection with Admission or Discipline

8.2:101 Model
Rule Comparison

PA-R 8.2(a)
and (b) is similar to MR
8.2(a). However, whereas MR 8.2(a) prohibits a lawyer from making a statement
that the lawyer knows to be false or "with reckless disregard as to its truth
or falsity" concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory
officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment
to a judicial or legal office, PA-R 8.2 only prohibits a lawyer from knowingly
making such a statement concerning the qualifications of a candidate for election
or appointment to a judicial office PA-R 8.2(a), or
knowingly making a false accusation against a judge or other adjudicatory officer.
PA-R 8.2(b). PA-R 8.2(c)
is substantially similar to MR 8.2(b).
Pennsylvania adopted the Comment to MR
8.2.

Pursuant to PA-R
8.2(b) a lawyer shall not knowingly make false accusations against a judge
or other adjudicatory officers. While no cases in Pennsylvania address this
rule, it is similar to MR 8.2(a).

A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office must comply
with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Phila. B.A. Prof. Guid.
Comm., Op. 88-28 (1988). See Stretton v. Disciplinary
(3rd Cir. 1991). Plaintiff, a lawyer and candidate for judge in the Court
of Common Pleas sought to enjoin enforcement of Canon 7 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct contending that his ability to campaign
for the position was impeded by the limitations imposed by the Code. Canon 7(B)(1)(c)
bars judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political
issues, while Canon 7(B)(2) prohibits personal solicitation of campaign funds.
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Canon 7(B)(2) does
not offend the Constitution and vacated the district court's order barring enforcement
of Canon 7(B)(2). Id. at 140.

Misconduct which gives rise to a duty to disclose must
raise a substantial question about the attorney's fitness to practice law. Pa.
Eth. Op. 89-80 (undated). While substantial is not defined, the Comments
to the rule suggest that "an apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern
of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover." Furthermore,
the rule applies to actual misconduct, not suspected misconduct, Phila.
B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm., Op. 90-7 (1990); Pa. Eth.
Op. 92-32 (1992), and the duty to disclose the misconduct must be weighed
against competing considerations under other rules such as the duty not to disclose
confidential information. See 8.3:400 below.
In the following situations, a duty to disclose the misconduct of another lawyer
was found: See Phila. B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm., Op. 95-13(1995) (lawyer advised to consider reporting misconduct
of opposing counsel where opposing counsel sought to impose a non-negotiable
condition in a settlement offer in violation of Rules
5.6(b) and 8.4); Pa.
Eth. Op. 92-114 (1992) (associate must disclose fact that partner caused
false signatures to be placed on a document unless the partner informs the applicable
courts and opposing counsel); Phila. B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm.,
Op. 88-37(1989) (lawyer had duty to report
opposing counsel for submitting an attorney verification in support of a motion
which contradicted the opposing party's affidavit as it calls into question
the lawyer's honesty and trustworthiness). Rule
8.3 imposes an ethical duty on all members of the Pennsylvania Bar, including
members of the judiciary. See Matthews v. Freedman, (E.D.
Pa. 1989), aff'd. without op. (1990) (district court judge stated that
an attorney's unexplained delay in filing his client's claim and his repeated
failure to comply with filing deadlines set by the court warranted referral
to the appropriate disciplinary board). However, the duty to report the misconduct
of a lawyer does not extend to nonlawyers. Phila. B.A. Prof.
Guid. Comm., Op. 95-15 (1995).

"A lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial
question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority."
PA-R 8.3(b). While no cases in
Pennsylvania address this rule, it is the same as MR
8.3(b).

A lawyer cannot report the misconduct of another lawyer
where disclosure involves confidential information. See e.g. Phila.
B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm., Op. 96-6 (1996) (lawyer needed consent of client
before disclosing misconduct of opposing counsel where disclosure involved confidential
information); Phila. B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm., Op. 93-28
(1994) (where attorney B learned that attorney A had converted the funds
of decedent's estate to his own use, he could not report the misconduct without
the client/beneficiary's consent since the professional misconduct was based
solely on "information relating to representation"); Pa.
Eth. Op. 93-85 (1993) (lawyer may not report prior counsel's misconduct
without client's consent). Information relating to the representation of a client
is usually confidential. Pa. Eth. Op. 93-48 (1993).
But see Phila. B.A. Prof. Guid. Comm., Op. 88-23
(1988) (where lawyer received information from another party to the litigation,
rather than from his client, regarding the misconduct of another attorney involved
in the litigation, that information was not confidential, and should be disclosed);
Pa. Eth. Op. 92-33 (1992) (lawyer who discussed possible
representation of a defendant in the presence of his current client and another
lawyer, who later also became a defendant in the case, must report that lawyer
when he falsely answers deposition questions about this meeting and his acquaintance
with the second defendant. The false statements are not covered by the confidentiality
of the lawyer's existing representation since they pertain to the other defendant).

8.4:101 Model
Rule Comparison

PA-R 8.4 is
identical to the Model Rule. The Comment to
the PA-R contains an additional paragraph stating that a lawyer's duties
as an officer of the court require particular sensitivity to conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice.

8.4:102 Model
Code Comparison

PA-Rs 8.4(a-d)
are substantially similar to DR 1-102(A).
PA-R 8.4(e) is substantially similar to DR
9-101(C). There is no direct counterpart to PA-R 8.4(f) in the Model Code.
EC 7-34 states in part that "[a]
lawyer ... is never justified in making a gift or loan to a [judicial officer]
except as permitted by ... the Code of Judicial Conduct . . ." EC
9-1 states that a lawyer "should promote public confidence in our [legal]
system and in the legal profession."

PA-R 8.4(a)
has been considered in the following federal and Pennsylvania cases: United
States v. McNaughton (E.D. Pa. 1994) (a law enforcement agent was alter
ego of prosecuting attorneys and was not subject to Rule 8.4(a), absent proof
by government that agent was not acting at request of government attorneys);
Kelley v. Tupitza(E.D. Pa. 1992)
(failure to obey client's instructions could be violation of Rule 8.4).

PA-R 8.4(a)
is considered in the following Pennsylvania and Philadelphia bar association
opinions: Pa. Eth. Op. 95-110(1995)
(lawyer serving as solicitor for two townships may not participate in
negotiation on behalf of the townships with Developers where the townships request
monetary donations or dedications of land from developers, and such requests
are not provided by applicable statute, if the lawyer determines that the request
amount to fraudulent or illegal conduct; if lawyer does in fact determine that
the requests are fraudulent, lawyer must withdraw from representation. Lawyer
may, but is not required, to disclose confidential information to prevent or
rectify the consequences of fraudulent conduct); Phila. Eth.
Op. 95-14-A (1995) (a lawyer whose client, without the lawyer's knowledge,
wrote to the judge presiding over his lawsuit, is not obligated to provide opposing
counsel with a copy of the letter); Phila. Eth. Op. 95-13
(1995) (an attempt to settle a case by imposing conditions that induce
opposing counsel to violate the Rules may violate Rule 8.4(a)); Pa.
Eth. Op. 94-110 (1994) (lawyer may advertise sale of his law practice
if advertisement is clearly worded to indicate that it is clear that sale of
the goodwill attached to the practice is not intended; Pa.
Eth. Op. 94-65 (1994) (lawyer must explain to client the consequences
of the client's seemingly fraudulent valuations of inherited stock and the need
to rectify errors or false statements; if client refuses to rectify errors,
lawyer must withdraw from representation); Phila. Eth. Op.
94-16 (1995) (an attorney who violates the statute requiring persons
holding themselves out as being entitled to practice in Pennsylvania without
in fact having been admitted to the bar may have committed a violation of Rule
8.4(a)); Pa. Eth. Op. 92-97(1992)
(opposing counsel may not plan together to intentionally create certain deficiencies
in evidence at trial to achieve desired result); Pa. Eth.
Op. 92-26 (1992) (lawyer whose opponent in litigation induces a notary
public to secretly alter a publicly filed document must report such conduct
to disciplinary authorities); Pa. Eth. Op. 92-18 (1992)
(lawyer representing estate who discovers that executor, who is also a beneficiary,
committed fraud to obtain estate assets is required to demand executor's withdrawal;
if executor refuses, lawyer should disclose facts to court and may also terminate
representation); Pa. Eth. Op. 90-142 (1990) (the Rule
prevents an attorney from accomplishing indirectly what it is unethical to do
directly, such as, for example, instructing an investigator to communicate with
an opposing organization's employees where the attorney's contact would violate
the Rules); Phila. Eth. Op. 90-21 (1990) (lawyer representing
defendant against a claim that the plaintiff's injury prevents her from conducting
sales demonstrations may not hire an investigator to stage such a sales demonstration
in order to film the plaintiff's participation; such conduct would involve misconduct
through the acts of an agent because a contact would involve direct communication
with the plaintiff, rather than passive surveillance); Phila.
Eth. Op. 89-17 (1989) (the Rule prevents a lawyer from counseling a client
to do that which the lawyer is prohibited from doing under the Rules. For example,
a lawyer should not advise a client to threaten pursuit of criminal remedies
unless criminal remedies exist and the client in fact intends to pursue those
remedies); Phila. Eth. Op. 89-2(1989)
(possible violation of Rule
8.4(a) if lawyer's proposal to purchase data from another lawyer would induce
other lawyer to violate Rules).

PA-R 8.4(b)
was considered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A. (1991) (Judicial Inquiry
Review Board had exclusive jurisdiction to discipline judicial officers for
violations of Rule 8.4(b), so as to preclude action by Office of Disciplinary
Counsel against the same individuals who were also attorneys registered to practice
law in Pennsylvania, where conduct in question arose while attorneys were judicial
officers and type of misconduct was intrinsically tied to position of attorneys
as judicial officers).

PA-R 8.4(b)
was considered in the following bar association opinions: Phila.
Eth. Op. 95-15 (1995) (counselling a client against compliance with a
reporting requirement imposed by applicable law might constitute a violation
of Rule 8.4(b)); Phila. Eth. Op. 94-21 (1994) (violation
of Workers' Compensation Act section regarding insurance fraud would constitute
a violation of Rule 8.4(b)); Phila. Eth. Op. 94-16 (1995)
(an attorney who violates the statute requiring persons holding themselves out
as being entitled to practice in Pennsylvania without in fact having been admitted
to the bar may have committed a violation of Rule 8.4(b)); Pa.
Eth. Op. 92-97 (1992) (opposing counsel may not plan together to intentionally
create certain deficiencies in evidence at trial to achieve desired result);
Pa. Eth. Op. 92-18 (1992) (lawyer representing estate
discovers that executor, who is also a beneficiary, committed fraud to obtain
estate assets; lawyer required to demand executor's withdrawal; if executor
refuses, lawyer should disclose facts to court and may also terminate representation).

PA-R 8.4(c)
was considered in the following federal and Pennsylvania cases: Georgine
v. Amchem Products, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1995) (letters and advertisements
disseminated by counsel for clients opposed to class settlement of asbestos-related
litigation were misleading to the extent they failed to disclose that counsel
had strong pecuniary interest in disseminating/publishing the communications,
and may have violated Rule 8.4(c)); Brown v. Hammond (E.D.
Pa. 1993) (allegation that paralegal and secretary's work was billed
to clients as "attorney time", if true, would violate Rule 8.4(c); Clemente
v. Espinoza (E.D. Pa. 1990) (accusing an attorney of being connected
to Mafia imputes a violation of Rule 8.4(c)); In re Costigan(1995) (lawyers lack of basic understanding of ethical
obligation under Rule 8.4(c) disqualified him from readmission to the bar);
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Duffield (1994)
(attorney's dishonesty in representations to Office of Disciplinary Counsel
violated Rule 8.4(c)); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.
Holston, (1993) (knowingly forging a court order and certificate, and
lying to judicial authority upon being questioned as to origins of document,
constitutes violation of Rule 8.4(c) and other rules warranting disbarment);
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A. (1991)
(Judicial Inquiry Review Board had exclusive jurisdiction to discipline
judicial officers for violations of Rule 8.4(c), so as to preclude action by
office of disciplinary counsel against the same individuals who were also attorneys
registered to practice law in Pennsylvania, where conduct in question arose
while attorneys were judicial officers and type of misconduct was intrinsically
tied to position of attorneys as judicial officers).

PA-R 8.4(c)
was considered in the following bar association opinions: Phila.
Eth. Op. 95-20 (1995) (a lawyer may distribute flyer to people entering
or leaving family court building, listing telephone of non-profit organization
to provide free information regarding domestic relations law, as long as the
nonprofit is not actually a subterfuge for the lawyer to obtain clients; lawyer
must also insure that the communication is not legal advice or counseling);
Phila. Eth. Op. 95-15 (1995) (counselling a client
against compliance with a reporting requirement imposed by applicable law might
constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(c)); Phila. Eth. Op. 94-21
(1994) (attorney's failure to apprise defense counsel that client is
receiving workers compensation while incarcerated is not a violation of Rule
8.4(c)); Phila. Eth. Op.94-16
(1995) (an attorney who violates the statute requiring persons holding
themselves out as being entitled to practice in Pennsylvania without in fact
having been admitted to the bar may have committed a violation of Rule 8.4(c));
Pa. Eth. Op. 93-144 (1994) (lawyer who believes client
may have malpractice claim against lawyer's former firm has no obligation to
notify firm's insurer, that giving such notice would violate Rule 8.4(c) only
if it was part of a scheme to engage in fraudulent or deceitful conduct); Phila.
Eth. Op. 93-16 (1993) (lawyer who has written book of a particular area
of law in which lawyer practices must be on active status with the state supreme
court, regardless of whether work on the book was done on a pro bono basis);
Pa. Eth. Op. 92-18 (1992) (lawyer representing estate
who discovers that executor, who is also a beneficiary, committed fraud to obtain
estate assets is required to demand executor's withdrawal; if executor refuses,
lawyer should disclose facts to court and may also terminate representation);
Phila. Eth. Op. 91-28 (1991) (attorney's knowing participation
with a psychologist in the violation of the psychologist's code of ethics could
violate Rule 8.4(c)); Phila. Eth. Op. 90-24 (1990)
(an attorney who permits his name and signature to be used in a letter of which
he has no knowledge and does not approve violates Rule 8.4(c)); Phila.
Eth. Op. 90-7 (1990) (knowingly false statements made in letter to government
authority would violate Rule 8.4(c)).

PA-R 8.4(d)
was considered in the following federal and Pennsylvania cases: United
States v. Starusko (3rd Cir. 1984) (a prosecutor who intentionally fails
to make disclosure to defense of existence of evidence which tends to negate
guilt of the accused may be sanctioned under Rule 8.4(d)); Georgine
v. Amchem Products, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1995) (letters and advertisements
disseminated by counsel for clients opposed to class settlement of asbestos-related
litigation were misleading to the extent they failed to disclose that the office
had strong pecuniary interest in disseminating/publishing the communications,
and may have violated Rule 8.4(d)); In re Costigan (1995)
(lawyer's lack of basic understanding of ethical obligation under Rule 8.4(d)
disqualified him from readmission to the bar); Commonwealth
v. Chambers (1996) (prosecutor's public criticism of judicial decision
is not inherently prejudicial to adjudicative proceedings), cert.
denied (U.S. 1997); Office of Disciplinary Counsel
v. Anonymous Attorney A. (1991) (Judicial Inquiry Review Board had exclusive
jurisdiction to discipline judicial officers for violations of Rule 8.4(d),
so as to preclude action by office of disciplinary counsel against the same
individuals who were also attorneys registered to practice law in Pennsylvania,
where conduct in question arose while attorneys were judicial officers and type
of misconduct was intrinsically tied to position of attorneys as judicial officers).

PA-R 8.4(d)
was considered in the following bar association opinions: Pa.
Eth. Op. 96-30 (1996) (lawyer who prepared will and learns prior to decedent's
death that decedent executed new and materially different will may remain silent
if he believes circumstances of new will are benign; if circumstances are suspicious,
lawyer should advise beneficiaries); Pa. Eth. Op. 95-155A
(1995) (lawyer may decline to represent potential client without revealing
that the lawyer's firm has been retained by the adverse party); Pa.
Eth. Op. 96-13 (1996) (lawyer who prepared will for decedent required
to disclose co-beneficiary's misconduct to other beneficiaries); Phila.
Eth. Op. 95-15 (1995) (counselling a client against compliance with a
reporting requirement imposed by applicable law might constitute a violation
of Rule 8.4(d)); Pa. Eth. Op. 94-69(1994)
(lawyer who drafted a will and a pre-nuptial agreement for a woman who
subsequently died must disclose the fact that husband, who is executor of the
will, intends to take against the will even though the former client left nothing
to him in the will; lawyer should make disclosures in following order: first
to executor, then if necessary, to beneficiaries, next to the attorney general
and last to the court); Pa. Eth. Op. 92-18 (1992)
(lawyer representing estate who discovers that executor, who is also a beneficiary,
committed fraud to obtain estate assets is required to demand executor's withdrawal;
if executor refuses, lawyer should disclose facts to court and may also terminate
representation); Phila. Eth. Op. 91-33 (undated) (attorney
required to recuse himself from participation as member of Tax Review Board
in any hearing in which member of his firm appears as counsel); Phila.
Eth. Op. 91-28 (1991) (attorney's knowing participation with a psychologist
in the violation of the psychologist's code of ethics could violate Rule 8.4(d));
Phila. Eth. Op. 91-23 (undated) (attorney representing
client in both civil and criminal matters may be required by Rule 8.4(d) to
withdraw as counsel in the civil matter where client is a fugitive); Phila.
Eth. Op. 87-20 (undated) (Rule 8.4(d) would be violated where attorney
serves as member of Workers' Compensation Appeal Board while his law firm continues
to practice before the Board).

PA-R 8.4(e)
was considered in the following bar association opinions: Phila.
Eth. Op. 91-33 (undated) (attorney required to recuse himself from participation
as member of Tax Review Board in any hearing in which member of his firm appears
as counsel); Phila. Eth. Op. 87-28 (1987) (attorney's
billboard advertisement that implied that prospective clients would be guaranteed
a favorable result violates Rule 8.4(e)); Phila. Eth. Op.
87-20 (undated) (Rule 8.4(e) would be violated where attorney serves
as member of Workers' Compensation Appeal Board while his law firm continues
to practice before the Board).

PA-R 8.4(f)
was considered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A. (1991) (Judicial Inquiry
Review Board had exclusive jurisdiction to discipline judicial officers for
violations of Rule 8.4(f) so as to preclude action by Office of Disciplinary
Counsel against the same individuals who were also attorneys registered to practice
law in Pennsylvania, where conduct in question arose while attorneys were judicial
officers and type of misconduct was intrinsically tied to position of attorneys
as judicial officers).

PA-R 8.4(f)
was considered in the following bar association opinions: Phila.
Eth. Op. 91-33 (undated) (attorney required to recuse himself from participation
as member of Tax Review Board in any hearing in which member of his firm appears
as counsel); Phila. Eth. Op. 88-1 (1988) (no violation
of Rule 8.4(f) where organization of trial attorneys entertains judges at an
annual outing).

Using threats of criminal prosecution in a civil matter
is generally permitted in Pennsylvania as long as three conditions are met:
(1) the lawyer must make a good faith effort to determine that the criminal
remedies apply to the party's conduct, (2) the lawyer must ensure that the client
intends to pursue these remedies, and (3) the lawyer must not imply or suggest
that the lawyer or the client, rather than the district attorney controls the
issuance of criminal complaints. Pa. Eth. Op. 91-55 (undated)
(mentioning first requirement); Phila. Eth. Op. 89-17
(1989). However, one ethics opinion in Pennsylvania has taken the opposite
stance, stating that letters from lawyers that threaten criminal prosecution
are "inappropriate and that the tenor of the Rules prohibit them" because the
"issuance of a private criminal complaint is not in the exclusive control of
private counsel." However, a letter stating that the client might seek legal
redress or institute a legal proceeding against the debtor would be permitted.
Phila. Eth. Op. 88-20 (1988); see also
Pa. Eth. Op. 89-120 (undated) (prosecutors may not make threatening statements
to witnesses).

PA-R 8.5(a)
has been considered in the following bar association opinions: Phila.
Eth. Op. 96-13 (undated) (attorney is subject to disciplinary authority
of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for any breaches of ethical obligations under
rules promulgated by federal Immigration and Naturalization Service); Phila.
Eth. Op. 96-12 (1996) (attorney is subject to disciplinary authority
of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for any breaches of ethical obligations under
rules of United States Patent and Trademark Office); Pa.
Eth. Op. 90-2 (1990) (attorney licensed in foreign jurisdiction who travels
to Pennsylvania to negotiate on behalf of a foreign client remains subject to
the disciplinary authority of the jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice).

PA-R 8.5(b)
was considered in the following federal cases: White Consolidated
Industries, Inc. v. Island Kitchens Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1995) (application
of Pennsylvania choice of law rules led to determination that motion to withdraw
as counsel be evaluated under New York Code of Professional Responsibility rather
than PA-Rs); Yardis Corporation v. Levine (E.D. Pa. Jan.
11, 1991) (motion to disqualify counsel evaluated under New York Code
of Professional Responsibility since counsel was licensed to practice in New
York, not in Pennsylvania).